This document discusses non-insecticidal approaches for vegetable pest management. It begins by explaining that non-insecticidal management uses pest control techniques that do not rely on insecticides, instead using biological and cultural methods. Some key non-insecticidal approaches discussed include cultural practices like crop rotation, planting resistant varieties, and trap cropping. Mechanical methods like collection/destruction, trellising and protected cultivation are also summarized. The use of biological controls like predators, parasitoids, pathogens and entomopathogenic fungi, bacteria, viruses and nematodes are explained. Finally, the document presents three case studies evaluating the effectiveness of different non-insecticidal approaches for managing pests in vegetables.

1. 1

2. Non-insecticidal
Approaches in
Vegetable Pest
Management
2

3.  Vegetables provide nutritional security in addition to food
security.
 Supply carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins and minerals.
 Constitute the major part of the diet.
 Vegetables grown in 93.9 million hectares with a production of
162.8 million tons.
(NHB, 2013)
3
INTRODUCTION:-

6. Non-insecticidal Management describes various pest-
control techniques which do not rely on insecticides. It is
used in organic production, as well as in other situations in
which the introduction of toxins is undesirable. (or) Instead
of the use of synthetic toxins, pest control is achieved by
biological means.
6
What is non-insecticidal management?

7. Why pest problems are more in vegetables?
 Monoculture
 Dense cropping
 Availability of preferred host(s)
 Excessive use of fertilizers
 Indiscriminate use of pesticides
7

8. Why non-insecticidal methods are
needed?
 Pesticide residue
 Pest resistance
 Resurgence
8

16. 16
IN FUTURE....... !
2050

17. 17
Non -
insecticidal
practices
MECHANICA
L
HOST PLANT
RESISTANCE
BIOLOGICA
L
BOTANICAL
GENETICALL
Y MODIFIED
CROPS
SEMIO -
CHEMICALS
CULTURAL

18.  The manipulation of cultural practices at an appropriate time for
reducing or avoiding pest damage to crops is known as cultural
control.
 Field and plant sanitation – regular removal of weeds, grasses
and infested plant parts. Eg : Paddy gall fly Orseolia oryzae
breeds on grasses such as Panicum sp., Cynodon dactyoln etc.
 Tillage operations- Deep summer ploughing, hoeing etc. Eg :
Raking up and hoeing of the soil around gourds, mango and
other fruit trees serves to destroy pupae of fruit flies.
 Crop rotation. Eg : Groundnut with non leguminous crops is
recommended for minimizing the leaf miner incidence
 Planting of resistant varieties. Eg: GEB-24 and MTU–5249
resistance to paddy BPH, Surekha variety to gall midge, TKM -6
and Ratna for stem borer.
18
Cultural control:-

19.  Planting time- manipulation of planting time helps to minimize
population. Eg: Early planting of paddy in kharif and late
planting in rabi minimize the infestation of rice stem borer.
 High seed rate . Eg : Adoptation of high seed rate in sorghum
and later removal and destruction of shoot fly (Atherigona
soccata) affected ones.
 Trap cropping – Planting a preferred host plant of an insect pest
near the primary crop that is to be protected.
 Cabbage with mustard

20. Mechanical control Collection and
destruction
Trellis system
Traps
Pest exclusion
Protected cultivation
Lure and kill

21. Trellis system
 More light penetration
 Pest monitoring becomes too easy
 Less pest and disease problem
 Comparatively less health hazards

22. Protected cultivation technology
 Insect- pests cause direct and indirect damage
 Polyhouse and nethouse act as physical barrier
 Incidence of insect- pest less in protected cultivation
 Superior quality of produce

23. Trapping
 Monitoring: Insect trap catches indicate adult pest activity
 Economic thresholds are based on trap catch numbers
 Ex: Light trap (adult moths, beetles)
 Pheromone traps (sex pheromones are used to attract the
opposite sex)

24. Sticky traps: Two types
1. Blue sticky trap- catches thrips
2. Yellow sticky trap- catches whiteflies, leaf miner.
• yellow traps, trapped higher number of adult leaf miner (1879.1)
and whiteflies (544.5).
•Black color trap, trapped lesser number of adult leaf miner (14.0)
and whiteflies (2.6).
• One trap per 20m2 for mass trapping of whitefly.
Durairaj et ai.,2007

25. Sapkota et al., (2010)
Damage assessment and management of cucurbit
fruit flies in spring-summer squash
J. Entomology and Nematology
Vol. 2:7-12 25
CASE STUDY: 1

26. Cucurbit fruit fly- Bactrocera cucurbitae
Damage losses up to 20-39% (Kodandaram, 2014)
26
Different stages of squash fruit damaged by
cucurbit fruit fly. A. Pre-set damage, B. Post-set
damage, C. Harvested damage.
Adult female of cucurbit fruit fly

27. Location : Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science
Chitwan, Nepal.
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 6
Replications : 4
Variety : Bulam House (F1)
Sapkota et al., (2010)
27

28. Sl.
No
Treatments Cucurbit fruit fly damage
Ovary (No.) Post-set (%) Harvested
(%)
1 Cue-lure 0.70b 25.2abc 12.38bc
2 Rice food bait 1.02b 26.1abc 11.72bc
3 Chemical treatment 1.35ab 29.5ab 17.65ab
4 Banana pulp bait 1.22b 24.1bc 10.06c
5 Leaf extract 'Jholmal' 0.65b 18.6c 10.59bc
6 Control 2.27a 32.5a 21.82a
Grand mean 1.20 26.0 14.04
Table 1: Fruit fly damage in unopened flowers (ovary), and post set and
harvested fruits of squash under farmers’ field conditions during
spring-summer.
v
Sapkota et al., (2010)
28
v v
‘Jholmal’- Cow urine +fresh cow dung+ leaves of Neem+ Tulsi+
Tomato+ Marigold+ Chrysanthemum+ Garlic + Chilli and Ginger

29. Table 2: Total fruits set, marketable fruits and fruits damaged due to fruit
fly in squash under farmers’ field condition during spring –
summer.
Sl. No. Treatments Fruit damage
by fruit fly (%)
Marketable
fruits (%)
Total fruit
set/plant (No.)
1 Cue-lure 37.6bc 35.6b 12.38a
2 Rice food bait 37.8bc 38.7b 12.50a
3 Chemical
treatment
47.2ab 29.8b 8.94b
4 Banana pulp bait 34.1c 36.7b 11.50a
5 Leaf extract
'Jholmal'
29.2c 59.7c 11.81a
6 Control 54.3a 31.9b 11.81a
Grand mean 40 38.8 11.49
Sapkota et al., (2010)
29

30. Sl. No. Treatments
Harvested fruits (%)
Unmarketable by fruit
fly damage
Marketable
Number Number
1 Cue-lure 21.8b 62.2b
2 Rice food bait 20.3b 67.6b
3 Chemical treatment 36.8a 63.2b
4 Banana pulp bait 19.2b 69.7b
5 Leaf extract 'Jholmal' 15.1b 84.11a
6 Control 38.9a 55.9b
Grand mean 25.4 67.1
Table 3: Numbers of harvested fruits of squash under different
treatment conditions in the farmer’s fields during spring-
summer.
Sapkota et al., (2010)30

31. 31
Conclusion
Application of locally made botanical pesticide ‘Jholmal’
was found superior in terms of fruit size (895 g), quality and
yield (62.8 t/ha), and reduced fruit fly infestation in squash as
compared to other treatments.
Sapkota et al., (2010)

32. Biological control
• The term biological control was first used by Smith (1919).
• It is the control of pest by employing predators, parasitoids and
micro organisms.
Predators
• The insect which will eat insect pest.
• They have long life cycle so required more than one prey.
Parasitoids
• It is an organism which lives and feeds either internally or externally
on other organism.
32

33. Types of biological control
There are three basic types of biological pest control
strategies:
1.Importation (classical biological control) involves the
introduction of a pest's natural enemies to a new locate
where they do not occur naturally. Rodalia cardinalis-
cottony cushion scale
2. Augmentation- involves the supplemental release of natural
enemies, boosting the naturally occurring population.
33

34.  Inoculative release: Relatively few natural enemies may be
released at a critical time of the season.
 Ex- Periodic releases of the parasitoid, Encarsia formosa is
used to control greenhouse whitefly.
 Inundative release: Millions may be released
Ex- Trichogramma
3. Conservation: The conservation of existing natural enemies in
an environment. Lae wing bugs, ladybird beetles.
34

35. 35
MICRO-
ORGANISMS
BACTERIA
Ex: Bt
FUNGI
Ex: white and
green
muscardin
fungi
VIRUS
Ex: NPV
NEMATODES
Ex. Steinernema
and
Heterorhabditis
spp.

36. Bacillus thurengensis
 Bt is a motile, spore forming bacterium, in addition to endospores produces
a proteinaceous parasporal crystal in the sporangium at the time of
sporulation.(Endo toxins)
36
Entomopathogenic Bacteria Target pests Dosage
Bacillus thurengensis
Helicoverpa armigera
2-2.5 g/l
Plutella xylostella
Spodoptera litura
Leucinodes orbonalis
Gautam, 2008

37. Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV)
 It has many lepidopteran hosts.
 Ex: Ha NPV - it is highly effective on Helicoverpa armigera, pest
of tomato, chilli, cabbage, spice, medicinal and flower crops.
 Sl NPV - for Spodoptera litura
Symptoms
 Diseased larvae less active, flaccid, fragile and
rupture of integument
 Dead larva found hanging by prolegs from top (Suicide- Hanging)
37

38. 38

39. Kumari and Singh
(2009)
Spodoptera litura nuclear polyhedrosis virus
(NPV-S) as a component in Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) of Spodoptera litura on
cabbage
Journal of Biopesticides, 2: 84-86
39
CASE STUDY: 2

40. Location : Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura,
Jaipur
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 9
Replications : 3
Variety : Golden acre
Kumari and Singh (2009)
40

41. Sl.
No.
Treatments
Per cent reduction in larval population
after
1st spray 2nd spray
7DAS 14DAS 7DAS 14DAS
T1 NPV-S (250 LE/ha) 25.61 40.39 60.06 72.28
T2 NPV-S (500 LE/ha) 42.80 61.98 78.26 87.24
T3 Endosulfan (1250 ml/ha) 53.57 68.13 85.78 93.65
T4 Neemarin (700 ml/ha) 23.14 37.65 60.78 69.13
T5 NPV-S (250 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625 ml/ha) 27.03 43.80 88.14 95.35
T6 NPV-S (500 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625 ml/ha) 45.56 59.63 93.85 98.25
T7 NPVS
(250 LE/ha) + Neemarin (700 ml/ha)
30.19 45.00 66.34 79.34
T8 NPV-S (500 LE/ ha) + Neemarin ( 700 ml/ha) 43.12 60.03 81.71 90.53
T9 Untreated control 3.14 8.39 11.67 13.45
DAS = Days after spray
Table 4: Field efficacy of NPV-S alone and in combination with insecticides on the
infestation of Spodoptera litura on cabbage crop.
Kumari and Singh (2009)41

42. Treaments Yield (kg/ha)
Per cent increase in yield
over control
CBR
T1 13610 44.32 1 : 3.1
T2 13876 47.14 1 : 5.5
T3 14190 50.47 1 : 22.45
T4 12391 31.39 1 : 11.4
T5 14422 52.93 1 : 15.1
T6 15372 62.93 1 : 16.4
T7 13711 45.39 1 : 6.7
T8 13970 48.13 1 : 8.5
T9 9431 - -
C.D
P≤0.05 314.7
CBR = Cost benefit ratio
Table 5: Influence of application of NPV-S alone and in combination
with insecticides on yield and Cost benefit ratio.
Kumari and Singh (2009)
42

43. 43
Conclusion
Treatment with NPV-S (500 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625
ml/ha) was better in reducing the larval population and
increasing yield than other treatments.
Kumari and Singh (2009)

44. Entomopathogenic fungi
White Muscardine Fungus - Beauveria bassiana
 This fungus is effective in controlling both
bollworms and caterpillars as well as sucking
pests.
Ex: Botanigard, Mycotrol, Naturalis
Green muscardine fungus-Metarrhizium
Ex. multiplex anisopliae
 Attacking several pests like borers,
loopers, semiloopers, some sucking pests.
44

45. Entomopathogenic Nematodes (EPNs)
 These are the novel tool for management of insects, phyto-
nematodes and disease of agricultural crops.
 Nematode enter host through natural opening.
 It reduces the fitness, delays development and also causes
sterility.
 Kill insects in 1-4 days.
 Common species commercially available are Steinernema
carpocapsae , S. feltiae and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora
 They are also found safe to non-target organisms and
compatible with pesticides.
45

46. Botanical control
Plant products Target pests
Neem A variety of sucking and chewing
insects
Pyrethrum (Chrysantheum
cinerarifolium)
Sucking pests and flies
Rotenone (Derris elliptica) Leaf- feeding insects
Ryanodine (Ryania speciosa) Caterpillars and thrips
Sabadilla (Schoenocaulon afficinale) Leaf hoppers, thrips, bugs and
caterpillars
Nicotine (Nicotiana tobaccum) Caterpillars
Limonene and linalool (citrus peel
extracts)
Aphids and mites
46

47. Naik et al., (2012)
Performance of botanical and fungal formulation
for pest management in organic okra production
system
J.Biopest, 5:12-16
47
CASE STUDY: 3

48. Location : Organic Farming Research Centre,
Navile, Shivamogga
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 10
Replications : 4
Variety : Arka Anamika
48
Naik et al., (2012)

49. Treatments
No. of leafhoppers/3 leaves
1st spray 2nd spray
DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10
DAS
DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DAS
T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 9.30 2.27 2.00 2.43 13.00 2.83 3.47 2.60
T2 – Neem oil (2%) 8.67 2.60 2.17 2.63 11.67 3.53 3.17 3.50
T3 –NSKE (5%) 9.77 3.50 3.53 4.50 12.67 4.00 3.67 4.00
T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 9.53 6.50 6.00 7.20 13.50 8.67 7.83 7.83
T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 8.67 4.67 3.90 4.80 10.00 6.50 5.60 6.17
T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 9.70 2.87 2.37 3.53 14.00 4.83 4.00 4.67
T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l) 8.43 3.80 3.43 4.67 12.00 4.50 4.20 4.87
T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 9.67 2.67 2.20 2.77 14.67 3.67 3.33 3.83
T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 7.47 4.97 4.37 5.27 12.67 6.70 6.10 6.93
T10 -Water spray 8.50 10.00 9.50 11.17 13.17 13.33 13.0 14.33
CD at 0.05 0.48 0.51 0.64 0.75 0.74 0.66 0.79 0.53
Table 6: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulation against
leafhoppers on okra
Naik et al., (2012)49

50. Treatments
No. of aphids/3 leaves
1st spray 2nd spray
DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10
DAS
DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DA
S
T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 8.67 1.93 1.50 1.67 18.67 4.50 3.33 3.17
T2 – Neem oil (2%) 7.83 2.17 1.83 1.93 19.50 6.67 5.00 4.33
T3 –NSKE (5%) 9.17 2.50 2.00 2.00 17.00 9.33 5.67 6.00
T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 8.67 4.83 3.67 4.67 18.00 11.67 9.00 9.67
T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 9.50 3.67 2.67 3.67 18.00 9.20 6.33 6.87
T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 8.93 3.33 2.33 3.33 17.33 10.67 7.33 8.53
T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l) 8.33 3.87 3.33 3.50 16.33 12.20 7.33 7.67
T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 9.50 2.50 2.33 2.53 19.80 10.67 6.00 7.00
T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 9.83 5.67 5.67 6.67 17.00 12.33 8.67 9.00
T10 -Water spray 8.83 8.00 8.33 8.67 19.33 19.00 20.00 21.00
CD at 0.05 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.78 0.30 0.56 0.58 0.38
Table 7: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulations against
aphids on okra
50

51. Treatments
No. of whiteflies/3 leaves
1st spray 2nd spray
DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10
DAS
DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DA
S
T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 5.83 2.17 1.60 2.00 7.23 2.83 2.33 2.63
T2 – Neem oil (2%) 6.00 2.5 2.00 2.17 9.00 3.17 2.90 3.40
T3 –NSKE (5%) 5.67 3.00 3.17 3.00 8.33 3.77 3.87 4.00
T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 5.00 4.77 3.17 3.73 8.00 6.33 6.00 6.93
T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 6.00 4.00 3.53 2.67 8.33 4.00 4.00 4.50
T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 5.67 3.33 3.00 3.27 9.00 3.77 4.00 4.33
T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l 5.70 3.67 3,40 3.67 8.00 5.70 5.90 6.67
T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 6.33 3.00 2.53 2.87 8.50 4.63 3.10 3.53
T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 5.67 4.83 4.57 5.17 8.67 7.67 6.50 6.47
T10 -Water spray 6.50 5.50 5.67 5.93 8.00 7.50 8.00 8.50
CD at 0.05 0.48 0.60 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.1099 0.3513 0.5394
Table 8: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulation against
whiteflies on okra
Naik et al., (2012)51

52. 52
Conclusion
 Among botanicals Neemazol recorded 2.43 leafhoppers/3
leaves and for aphids and whiteflies recorded as 1.67 aphids/3
leaves and 2.00 whiteflies/3 leaves.
 Verticillium lecani @ 2.5 g/l showed 2.53 and 6.67 aphids/3
leaves and 2.80 and 3.53 whitefly/3 leaves at 10 DAS on the
first and the second spray respectively and was on par with
other mycopathogens.
Naik et al., (2012)

53. Effect of organic amendments, botanicals and
biopesticides against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa
armigera ( Hub.) and its parasitoid, Trichogramma
chilonis Ishii
Sathish and Raguraman (2007)
Madras Agric. J., 94: 232-241
53
CASE STUDY: 4

54. Tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera)
• Damaging stage: larva/caterpillar
It causes about 18-55% crop losses.
(Tiwari and Krishanamurthy, 1984).
Symptoms
caterpillars bore into the
fruits and the bored holes are
plugged with excreta.
54

55. Location : Department of Agricultural Entomology,
TNAU, Coimbatore
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 12
Replications : 3
Variety : PKM 1
55
Sathish and Raguraman (2007)

56. Treatments Concentration Per cent damage
30 DAT 45 DAT
Compost+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Neem cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 300 kg/ha
3.51 3.00
Compost+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Mahua cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 400 kg/ha
2.04 2.46
FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Mahua cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 400 kg/ha
1.80 1.26
FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Castor cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 400 kg/ha
2.55 2.07
FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Neem cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 300 kg/ha
1.08 1.05
FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+
Pungam cake
12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha
+ 400 kg/ha
1.35 1.77
Compost + NPK 12.5 t/ha + 150:100:50 kg/ha 5.80 5.26
FYM + NPK 12.5 t/ha + 150:100:50 kg/ha 4.86 4.20
Compost 12.5 t/ha 5.10 4.66
FYM 12.5 t/ha 4.26 3.54
NPK 150:100:50 kg/ha 7.53 8.43
Untreated check - 7.62 8.16
Table 9: Effect of organic amendments on H. armigera infestation in pot cultured tomato
DAT- Days after transplanting
SSB – Silicate solubilizing bacteria Sathish and Raguraman (2007)56

57. Treatment concentration Average no. of
eggs laid in 24h/9
females
No. of parasitized
eggs
Percent
parasitism
NSP 0.12% 21.6 19.0 90.2
NSP 0.18% 20.0 16.3 82.35
NS 0.12% 26.0 24.0 90.0
Neem oil 3% 15.0 11.0 77.32
NSKE+Bt 5%+15000 IU/
mg (2 lit/ha)
40.0 35.0 87.4 (69.21)
NSKE+HaNPV 5%+1.5×1012
POBs/ha
32.0 29.0 90.7
NSKE+Spinosad 5%+75g a.i /ha 17.0 15.0 86.2
Endosulfan 0.07% 32.0 28.0 88.9
Untreated check - 44.0 44.0 90.1
Table 10: Influence of botanicals and biopesticides on parasitization by
Trichogramma on H. armigera eggs
Sathish and Raguraman (2007)57
NSP – Neem + sweet flag + pongam

58. Conclusion
The feeding and infestation of the larvae of H. armigera were
significantly low in FYM + Azospirillum + SSB +
Phosphobacteria + Neem cake applied plants. Trichogramma
parasitization on H. armigera eggs was adversely affected by
Neem oil 3% on treated plants.
Sathish and Raguraman (2007)
58

59. 59
Evaluation of Botanical Mixtures for Insect
Pests Management on Cowpea Plants
Oparaeke et al., (2005)
Journal of Biopesticides 2: 37-43
CASE STUDY: 5

60. 60
Location : Teaching and Research Farm of the
Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University,
Nigeria
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 6
Replications : 3

61. 61
Treatment Mean number of insects
Thrips / flower Maruca spp./ flower
and /or pod
Clavigralla spp./plant
CNC + XLP 1.83 0.92 2.42
CNC + BLP 2.25 0.68 1.50
CNC + GLB 0.83 0.50 0.92
CPP + GLB 0.84 1.92 1.16
XLP + BTL 2.0 1.25 2.17
Untreated control 3.83 3.83 4.59
CNC- Cashew nutshell, XLP- African pepper, BLP-west African black pepper,
CPP- Chilli pepper, GLB- Garlic bulb, BTL- Bitter leaf (vernonia sp.)
Table 11: Effects of botanical mixtures on pest’s infestation
on
cowpea.

62. 62
Treatment Pod density per
plant
Pods infested per
plant (%)
Grain yield (kg/ha)
CNC + XLP 32.94 20.78 640.26
CNC + BLP 30.94 15.07 723.33
CNC + GLB 41.33 18.62 690.66
CPP + GLB 42.28 22.69 587.98
XLP + BTL 32.89 25.71 480.67
Untreated control 8.62 89.29 193.78
CNC- Cashew nutshell, XLP- African pepper, BLP-west African black
pepper, CPP- Chilli pepper, GLB- Garlic bulb, BTL- Bitter leaf (vernonia sp.)
Table 12: Effects of botanical mixtures on mean pod density, pod damage (%)
and grain yield of cowpea.

63. 63
Results of the experiments showed that all the plant extract
treatments were significantly better than control treatments. But
among plant extracts CNC + GLB (Cashew nutshell +) was
found best in controlling thrips, pod borer and flower bug but
the grain yield was best in CNC + BLP (Cashew nutshell +west
African black pepper) with 723.33 kg/ha.
Conclusion

64. Crop/pest Scientific name Pheromone lure
Tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa
armigera
Helilure
Tobacco caterpillar Spodoptera litura Spodolure
Brinjal S & F borer Leucinodes
arbonalis
Leucilure
Bhendi S & F
borer
Earias vitella, E.
insulina
Erilure, Vitlure
Semiochemicals
 The chemicals involved in communication.
Sex pheromone: A substance generally produced by the female to
attract the male.
64

65. Pheromones for the management of
brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes
orbonalis
Chatterjee et al., (2009)
Karnataka J. Agri. Sci. 22 : 594-596
65
CASE STUDY: 6

66. Brinjal shoot and fruit borer- Leucinodes orbonalis
Destructive stage: larvae
Damage losses: 11-93%.
(Kodandaram, 2014)
Symptoms
 Bored holes on fruits.
 Wilting and drying of shoots.
66

67. Location : Department of Plant Protection, West Bengal.
Design : Randomized block design
Treatments : 7
Replications : 6
Chatterjee et al., (2009)
67

68. Module
Shoot damage Fruit damage Fruit yield
% shoot
damage
%
protectio
n over
control
% fruit
damage
%
protectio
n over
control
Yield
(t/ha)
% gain
over
control
M1- Mechanical removal of
shoots & fruits
7.26 58.35 26.82 33.73 14.66 10.31
M2- Only installation of trap 9.34 46.41 29.98 25.92 17.00 28.67
M3- Trap + mechanical removal
of S & F
5.64 67.64 20.94 48.26 17.08 28.52
M4- Trap + botanicals 4.93 71.72 24.66 39.06 20.36 53.19
M5- Trap + mechanical removal
+ botanicals
4.08 76.59 21.89 45.91 20.24 52.29
M6- farmer’s practice (pesticide
spray)
4.12 76.36 24.24 40.10 18.46 38.90
M7- without any protection 17.43 - 40.47 - 13.29 -
Table 13: Performance of different modules in the management of brinjal shoot
and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis and their effect on fruit yield
Chatterjee et al., (2009)68

69. Lure
companies
1st
week
2nd
week
3rd
week
4th
week
5th
week
6th
week
Total
catch/trap
Agriland 8.63 6.33 5.00 6.00 4.67 4.33 35.0
Ganesh 9.33 7.00 5.33 5.67 4.33 5.00 36.7
PCI 8.00 4.67 4.33 5.33 4.67 3.33 30.3
NRI 15.67 10.33 9.00 7.67 7.00 6.33 56.0
C.D. (0.05) 0.69 0.78 0.55 0.61 0.64 0.72 -
Table 14: Relative efficacy of different commercial sex
pheromones with respect to number of moths caught
per trap per week
Chatterjee et al., (2009)
69

70. 70
Conclusion
The module with three components i.e. pheromone trap, timely
mechanical control and application of azadex (neem based
insecticides) was found most effective in reduction of shoot
damage (76.59%) and T3 was best to fruit damage reduction
(48.26).
Chatterjee et al., (2009)

71. Host plant resistance
The relative amount of heritable qualities possessed by a plant, which
influences the ultimate degree of damage done by the insect (Painter,
1951).
3 types
1. Non preference (Antixenosis): The non-preference of insect either
for feeding, oviposition or shelter.
2. Antibiosis: The plant has certain biochemical compounds, which
have adverse effects on insect growth and survival.
3. Tolerance: It is the ability to withstand heavy insect infestation.
71

72. Crop Pest Resistant varieties Nature of resistant Reference
Cucurbits Fruit fly Bottlegourd: NB 29 High relative
humidity
Nath (1966)
Brinjal Shoot &
Fruit
borer
Coimbatore, H 128 Toughness of skin
and pulp of the fruit
Srinivasan
(1961)
Okra Jassids Early long green,
IC-75
High hair density on
veins and lamina
and more errect
hairs
Daloya (1981)
Onion Thrips Bombay white High amount of
glycine, histidine
and cystine
Sexena (1970)
72

73. Genetically modified crops
 Modification in living organism for specific purpose
 Current scenario reflects that GM crops can be most effective when
they are used as part of IPM strategies.
 On the same lines the prospects of India’s first GM vegetable, Bt
brinjal is still under consideration for commercial use. Therefore,
resistance management is a primary challenge in the current direction
of biotechnology in pest management.
 Ex: Bt brinjal and cabbage
73

74.  More precise research should focus on plant incorporated protectant
foods.
 Evaluation of local natural resources for pest management.
 Conservation and augmentation of natural enemies.
 Need more scientific research work to exploit the biorational
insecticides/ bio-intensive pest management.
 Innovations in farmers participation and training to utilize the
developed techniques.
74

75.  Non- insecticidal practices are basic but eco-friendly ways to
minimize the insect-pest population.
 Traps can be used for monitoring and suppression of pest
population.
 Use the biological control agents with the emergence of pest.
 Insect resistant varieties should be used along with refuge crop.
 Various biopesticides which selective and eco-friendly are
available to control pests.
 IPM is the best technique for management of insect-pests.
75

76. 76